While I do believe the person behind the twitter handle should be found out and investigated (forging fake government documents seems wrong, even though this is the internet after all), pressing criminal charges for any wrongdoing is off. The blame for the whole thing is definitely on news sources not fact checking the credibility of their sources (come on seriously a random twitter account?).
Under a reasonable system, this person should be interviewed to see what their connection to Seth Rich was and possibly what their initial motive was for forging and publishing what they had.
Having said this, I do see some issues down the line around how this unmasking could be abused. Someone might post something they think is trivial and a parody but could have dire consequences based on a chain reaction of events that happen.
Fox ran the story despite the journalists knowing it was likely a fake document. From messages quoted in the judge's order[1]:
In the texts, Biggs stated “It’s a fake for sure.” Zimmerman responded “Do you know anything about him or where he really works or who he is? . . . [I’m] wondering why he passed a fake document when other info he’s shared has been spot on.”
I’m partly basing this on firsthand knowledge, since I was somewhat involved with it, but it’s in the order as well although it’s confusing.
You’ll note that the first mention of Whyspertech emails ... dates several weeks after Fox published the initial article. Whyspertech wasn’t a source for the article. He was someone who was encouraging Fox to keep it up, and possibly go further in reporting.
It wasn’t Fox just willy-nilly reporting what some Twitter account said… It was complicated with multiple people being deceitful, in a coordinated way.
I'm not surprised given their general history of journalistic integrity, but I still don't think that justifies trying to identify and charge the person who made it.
> pressing criminal charges for any wrongdoing is off
Well, first of all, that's not what's happening here. But, er, why do you think it shouldn't prosecuted? Much more minor fraud than this is routinely prosecuted.
> The blame for the whole thing is definitely on news sources not fact checking the credibility of their sources (come on seriously a random twitter account?).
The news source (Fox) had a fair idea it wasn't real.
To quote the Judge's order[1], quoting the reporters on the story: "It's a fake for sure.[...] wondering why he's passed a fake document"
It's confusing, because right before that the same ruling says "Biggs and Zimmerman never explicitly mention the name of the account or exactly what and who they are talking about."
Because Twitter has evidence that may be relevant to one or both sides of a defamation lawsuit, and civil litigants can use subpoenas to get evidence in the possession of third parties into court.
> The identity of the user is directly and materially relevant to Rich's defamation claim since it will inform whether Defendants made their statements with the requisite state of mind … The information sought is also materially relevant to the defense of truth because the original source may be able to provide what facts, if any, formed the basis for the various assertions about Rich. Additionally, the user information for the Account could lead to an essential witness for Rich and/or Defendants.
The source was “attached” to the Twitter account but that want his only communication with Fox. He’d been a source for over a year on a number of stories.
The Twitter account may be the only way to identify him ... assuming he didn’t take basic precautions.
Under a reasonable system, this person should be interviewed to see what their connection to Seth Rich was and possibly what their initial motive was for forging and publishing what they had.
Having said this, I do see some issues down the line around how this unmasking could be abused. Someone might post something they think is trivial and a parody but could have dire consequences based on a chain reaction of events that happen.